Bishop Brown answers my letter and sends one the same day to SJB pastor, 2-10-05

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim_orr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As an adoptive parent, I have a serious issue with gay couples adopting. It is very difficult to adopt in this country. My husband and I have 3 beautiful children through adoption (2 from overseas), but we had 4 failed adoptions as well (birthmoms changing their minds, etc.). It seems that if you have money, you are considered to have a “good home”. I remember an interview with Rosie O’Donnell when she said that her oldest son was sad one day, asking why he didn’t have a father. She reportedly told him if he had a daddy, then she couldn’t be his mommy. The interviewer thought that was a great answer. I was so sad for her son. I pray for Rosie and her children every day. I just wonder if the birth moms of these children know that gays are adopting their children. In my experience, the birthmoms want a better home with a mommy and daddy for their children. I know of at least one lesbian who adopted from China as a single mom and never disclosed that she had a “partner”. I’m sure that if you have enough money you can hire an attorney to find a child for you if you want one. It’s despicable.

Giannawannabe
 
40.png
Meg2:
Good stuff. Hadn’t heard this take before.
Click to expand...
Notice, also, Jesus let the Rich Man be who he was and go his own way. He didn’t do the “Christian thing” and try to make the him feel welcomed. He let him live in his sin (of pride) and be “sad” without bringing him into the Church Jesus was building, because that was what the man “chose to do.” .
40.png
Meg2:
I agree that the intentions of the two men are not honorable in God’s eyes. Yet there is a challenge in recognizing that, and showing “the love of Jesus” at the same time.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is a challenge, but wisdom and common sense should not be abandoned in order to “fix” a problem situation the wrong way. Jesus, above in Mk 10:17-31, did not “bend” his objective and purpose to accommodate the sinner. The sinner must accommodate Jesus. That’s why Jesus let the “lost opportunity” go and the Rich Man left sad, not getting his way on his conditions.

And at times, in situations like this one, that is the Christian thing to do, i.e., let the men continue to live in their sin outside the Church if that is what they decide to do. However, if they are willing to “sell everything,” their pride, their disorder, to obtain “eternal life” then they would be welcomed, and so would their children in a faith community of like believers on the terms of Christ, not the sinner. The later scenario would not be a threatening situation to the faithful and especially the innocence of the children.
 
40.png
Giannawannabe:
It is very difficult to adopt in this country. My husband and I have 3 beautiful children through adoption (2 from overseas), but we had 4 failed adoptions as well (birthmoms changing their minds, etc.).
Click to expand...
The motive for your adopting is love. These two men’s motive for adopting the twins boys and enrolling them in a Catholic school seems to be their own selfishness, not selflessness. God bless you, your husband and your family.
 
jim orr:
Notice, also, Jesus let the Rich Man be who he was and go his own way. He didn’t do the “Christian thing” and try to make the him feel welcomed. He let him live in his sin (of pride) and be “sad” without bringing him into the Church Jesus was building, because that was what the man “chose to do.” .

I agree that there is a challenge, but wisdom and common sense should not be abandoned in order to “fix” a problem situation the wrong way. Jesus, above in Mk 10:17-31, did not “bend” his objective and purpose to accommodate the sinner. The sinner must accommodate Jesus. That’s why Jesus let the “lost opportunity” go and the Rich Man left sad, not getting his way on his conditions.

And at times, in situations like this one, that is the Christian thing to do, i.e., let the men continue to live in their sin outside the Church if that is what they decide to do. However, if they are willing to “sell everything,” their pride, their disorder, to obtain “eternal life” then they would be welcomed, and so would their children in a faith community of like believers on the terms of Christ, not the sinner. The later scenario would not be a threatening situation to the faithful and especially the innocence of the children.
Click to expand...
Great reasoning. I wish more bishops held to the same logic.
 
Lisa N:
Far as I’m concerned, the pedophile has given up his right to live anywhere in society that he wishes. The rights of the children to be safe override the rights of the pedophile. Without evidence that there is effective treatment I believe these folks should be monitored if out in public.
Click to expand...
I’m not at all opposed to monitoring. Or chemical castration if it applies.
Lisa N:
You know the saying is love your neighbor AS YOURSELF. It is not self love to allow danger to enter your home.
Click to expand...
Hadn’t thought of it that way. I always thought of it as, if I did something truly atrocious, what kind of second chance or forgiveness would I hope for from others.
 
Neither Bishop Brown nor his Vicar Genera, Fr. Heher, responded to my reply of February 15 to their February 10th letters. The following is my Feb. 15 reply to the Vicar General with a copy going to Bishop Brown.

Part I

Dear Reverend Heher,

Thank you for your reply on behalf of his Excellency. You are absolutely correct; I do have a different take on the situation at St. John the Baptist School than the bishop and yourself.

First. It is not “punishing” the child if he is not able to attend a Catholic school. Is the diocese punishing children whose parents can’t afford to send them to the Catholic schools? The mere not attending is not a punishment.

Second, Webster’s defines parent as a noun **1: **one that begets or brings forth offspring 2 a: an animal or plant that is regarded in relation to offspring b: the material or source from which something is derived

These two men are not parents; they are parenting adoptive children, a very loving thing to do as long as the intent of adopting is not to use the children for selfish and disordered purposes. Those two men have two other adoptive children. Are they older? If so, why aren’t they being sent to St. John the Baptist School? Are they being punished by not being sent to the school by the two men?

Third. Heterosexual couples whose marriages are “canonically irregular” do not stand out in a school or church setting. And their children rarely know of the parents’ “canonically irregular” marriage. It is not as obvious as two men holding hands or kissing in front of other children. Or have those two men been advised not to do such things as real parents may do on church property after Mass or a school function? Or are those natural heterosexual loving signs of affection now against the school rules, too? If not, what is to keep the two men from doing such affectionate things in front of the children – etiquette? (If etiquette were a part of their character they never would have even tried to enroll the adopted children into a Catholic school.) The mere fact that the school printed the two men’s names as the “fathers” of the two students causes them to stand out. Heterosexual couples, canonically irregular or not, do not stand out in the school registry. Children’s innocents is not threaten by the presents of heterosexual couples or for that matter a single parent in a school setting.

Fourth. I didn’t know that being an alcoholic or a convicted felon serving time in prison were mortal sin offences that would condemn the persons to Hell by the mere existence of continuing to drink or continuing to be held as a prisoner.

Fifth. If educating the adoptive children “in our faith” was the goal of the bishop in this situation, would CCD classes not have been just as effective and a more sensitive approach to the school community, and the innocence of the children whose parents entrusted them to the school? Or do public school Catholic children get short changed in those classes?

Sixth. So, let me get this straight. The bishop and you are pleased with the situation that the teachers, religious and priest at St. John the Baptist School are going to educate those two children that the two men raising them are committing sin, and if they do not repent and separate then their souls and bodies will spend eternity burning in Hell. How comforting that will be to those boys; and how endearing they will be to their Catholic faith for being taught that.
 
Part II

Furthermore, you are ignoring the nature of children and how the boys’ classmates are going to behave towards them. Or do you think you will be able to change the nature of children, since the beginning of time, at this school?

Seventh. Yes, the pastor “treated the two adults in question with ‘respect, compassion and sensitivity’” as called for in the Church document mentioned by Bishop Brown in his letter. But that doesn’t mean consenting to their wishes is mandatory. It is a shame the faithful Catholic parents and their children didn’t get the same “respect, compassion and sensitivity” given to them by the pastor and now the bishop.

The issue here is not “punishment” or “respect, compassion and sensitivity,” it is scandal. And not scandal of the homosexual couple, but how the bishop has handled this situation.

Just as we have had to live with “abortion-on-demand” dictated by the Supreme Court and protected by the Democrat Party, of which the majority of clergy and religious continue to give their allegiance in name and support, contrary to their Profession of Faith, we now are saddled with having to live with scandal that Bishop Tod D. Brown has opened the door to in our Catholic schools stealing the innocence of the children.

In conclusion, “gay” is a word coined by the radical homosexual movement, referring to homosexual men specifically. Have you ever looked up the definition of “gay?” Most people will think that it is referring to happy people, and believe the reference to homosexuals is to the “fruity,” for lack of a better word, mannerism of some male homosexuals. But that is not the case. Gay has another meaning : given to social pleasures; also : **LICENTIIOUS **and licentious is defined as 1: Lacking legal or moral restraints; especially disregarding sexual restraints 2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness.

That is what Bishop Brown has permitted to enter the Catholic schools and steal the innocence from the children attending. If children are not allowed to keep their innocence they can never grow into adults. Jesus said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.” (Luke 17:1,2)

Sincerely,

Jim Orr
cc. Most Reverend Tod D. Brown
 
Is this proof that these men were or are members of a Gay activist organization?

Family Pride (a gay organization that advocates GLBT adoption) sent e-mail alerts to all their members “Join our national family in supporting one of ours in California”

familypride.org/enews/ealert012005.php
 
jim orr:
Neither Bishop Brown nor his Vicar Genera, Fr. Heher, responded to my reply of February 15 to their February 10th letters. The following is my Feb. 15 reply to the Vicar General with a copy going to Bishop Brown.

Part I

Dear Reverend Heher,

Thank you for your reply on behalf of his Excellency. You are absolutely correct; I do have a different take on the situation at St. John the Baptist School than the bishop and yourself.

First. It is not “punishing” the child if he is not able to attend a Catholic school. Is the diocese punishing children whose parents can’t afford to send them to the Catholic schools? The mere not attending is not a punishment.

Second, Webster’s defines parent as a noun **1: **one that begets or brings forth offspring 2 a: an animal or plant that is regarded in relation to offspring b: the material or source from which something is derived

These two men are not parents; they are parenting adoptive children, a very loving thing to do as long as the intent of adopting is not to use the children for selfish and disordered purposes. Those two men have two other adoptive children. Are they older? If so, why aren’t they being sent to St. John the Baptist School? Are they being punished by not being sent to the school by the two men?

Third. Heterosexual couples whose marriages are “canonically irregular” do not stand out in a school or church setting. And their children rarely know of the parents’ “canonically irregular” marriage. It is not as obvious as two men holding hands or kissing in front of other children. Or have those two men been advised not to do such things as real parents may do on church property after Mass or a school function? Or are those natural heterosexual loving signs of affection now against the school rules, too? If not, what is to keep the two men from doing such affectionate things in front of the children – etiquette? (If etiquette were a part of their character they never would have even tried to enroll the adopted children into a Catholic school.) The mere fact that the school printed the two men’s names as the “fathers” of the two students causes them to stand out. Heterosexual couples, canonically irregular or not, do not stand out in the school registry. Children’s innocents is not threaten by the presents of heterosexual couples or for that matter a single parent in a school setting.

Fourth. I didn’t know that being an alcoholic or a convicted felon serving time in prison were mortal sin offences that would condemn the persons to Hell by the mere existence of continuing to drink or continuing to be held as a prisoner.

Fifth. If educating the adoptive children “in our faith” was the goal of the bishop in this situation, would CCD classes not have been just as effective and a more sensitive approach to the school community, and the innocence of the children whose parents entrusted them to the school? Or do public school Catholic children get short changed in those classes?

Sixth. So, let me get this straight. The bishop and you are pleased with the situation that the teachers, religious and priest at St. John the Baptist School are going to educate those two children that the two men raising them are committing sin, and if they do not repent and separate then their souls and bodies will spend eternity burning in Hell. How comforting that will be to those boys; and how endearing they will be to their Catholic faith for being taught that.
Click to expand...
Jim,

Thank you for posting your letter it is very good. Sadly I don’t think it’s going to persuade anyone at Marywood. Their paychecks and careers depend on not be persuaded by anyone except the bishop. I will be surprised if you get another response from them, I have a feeling they know about this forum thread so unless they want their letters posted on a website I don’t think they are going to respond. But if you do happen to receive a letter please post it:whistle:
 
Jim Orr,

What a good reply. You have done well and even if you do not get a response I think you can assume that those that read it understood your point and perhaps over time it will help soften their hearts to the truth.
 
40.png
GloriaPatri4:
Jim,

Thank you for posting your letter it is very good. Sadly I don’t think it’s going to persuade anyone at Marywood. Their paychecks and careers depend on not be persuaded by anyone except the bishop. I will be surprised if you get another response from them, I have a feeling they know about this forum thread so unless they want their letters posted on a website I don’t think they are going to respond. But if you do happen to receive a letter please post it:whistle:
Click to expand...
Great letter, I agree. I particularly liked your last point. They are doing neither the children nor the Church any favors by either ignoring the reality of the situation or in not teaching the children that their situation is based on gravely disordered thinking, public sin and a complete disrespect for the rest of the parents and children.

Lisa N
 
40.png
GloriaPatri4:
Jim,Thank you for posting your letter it is very good. Sadly I don’t think it’s going to persuade anyone at Marywood. … I don’t think they are going to respond. But if you do happen to receive a letter please post it:whistle:
Click to expand...
I’ll let you know if he sends a reply. Frankly, I don’t know why Fr. Heher wouldn’t reply since my letter simply countered his reasoning. Seems he would like to shoot holes in mine. I will try to “pry” a reply out of him. Keep the faith.
 
While reading about “sin” in the CCC, prompted by a discussion on another thread, I noticed 1864 - the “Unforgivable Sin” and wondered if it does not have relevance to what is going on at St. John the Baptist School. Are not the two men blasheming the Holy Spirit?

“‘Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.’ (Mk 3:29; Mt 12:32; Lk 12:10) There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.(Cf. John Paul II, DeV 46.) Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.” (CCC1864)

What say you?
 
jim orr:
While reading about “sin” in the CCC, prompted by a discussion on another thread, I noticed 1864 - the “Unforgivable Sin” and wondered if it does not have relevance to what is going on at St. John the Baptist School. Are not the two men blasheming the Holy Spirit?

“‘Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.’ (Mk 3:29; Mt 12:32; Lk 12:10) There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.(Cf. John Paul II, DeV 46.) Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.” (CCC1864)

What say you?
Click to expand...
Jim,

Have you read Gloria’s questions which she posted in “Ask an Apologist”? click on underlined links below.

Should active homosexuals be permitted to flaunt their lifestyle at a CatholicSchool?

Should parents send their children to a party in a gay household?
 
40.png
HumbleSinner:
Jim,

Have you read Gloria’s questions which she posted in “Ask an Apologist”? click on underlined links below.

Should active homosexuals be permitted to flaunt their lifestyle at a CatholicSchool?

Should parents send their children to a party in a gay household?
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this. Has Fr. Serpa’s response been distributed or discussed at St. John the Baptist Church? How about with the bishop? I think Fr. Serpa’s statement below is on point:

“For the administration of a parish to allow such an open show of defiance of the Church’s moral teaching regarding sexual behavior is not only irresponsible, it is a scandal in itself! Our Lord had some very strong words about one who would scandalize His little ones: “…it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Mt 18:6)”

This is certainly starting to look more and more like a case of The Unforgivable Sin (CCC 1864) being put on paraded at not only the school, but St. John the Baptist Church as well, not to mention the Diocese of Orange with Bishop Tod Brown “blessing” the entire show.
 
Dear Jim,

Nearly three weeks ago packages were sent to various congregations in the Vatican. These packages included among other things, written testimonies by the concerned parents and a few parishioners at St. John’s, correspondence between the diocese and Michael Sundstedt and some things which I am not at liberty to discuss. I don’t know if or when we will hear any word from Rome and even if we do I doubt it will be posted on this forum.

Thanks for your concern
 
First, if my children went to this school, they wouldn’t anymore. It’s bad enough being assaulted by the gay culture on t.v and in the secular world, let alone in a supposedly “Catholic” environment. If these men truly wanted to “be Catholic” they would not be living the way they are. They would not be living together as “husband and husband” or “father and father”. Obviously, they are openly living an active gay lifestyle causing scandal and confusion for the hundreds of other children in this school. * They* are subjecting these vulnerable children to persecution, not the church. If these people are supposedly Catholic, then they know the Church’s position on their lifestyle. Therefore, they knew exactly what they were doing sending the kids there. If they get denied, the church looks bad. If they get to go ahead, the church still looks bad because it is “accepting” their lifestyle. It is a lose-lose situation for the Catholic Church.

And for all those who are gay rights sympathizers here, there is a difference between loving a person in spite of their sin, and helping them continue to do it by praising, condoning, etc.

"Be careful not to be so open-minded that your brains fall out" Father Corapi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top